Listen to Joe Guzzardi on the Immigration PodCast hosted by Todd Hartley. Joe’s latest interview is here.

Bush’s State of the Union has a section blaming Congress for failing to “address” immigration:

The other pressing challenge is immigration. America needs to secure our borders — and with your help, my administration is taking steps to do so. We’re increasing worksite enforcement, deploying fences and advanced technologies to stop illegal crossings. We’ve effectively ended the policy of “catch and release” at the border, and by the end of this year, we will have doubled the number of border patrol agents. Yet we also need to acknowledge that we will never fully secure our border until we create a lawful way for foreign workers to come here and support our economy. (Applause.) This will take pressure off the border and allow law enforcement to concentrate on those who mean us harm. We must also find a sensible and humane way to deal with people here illegally. Illegal immigration is complicated, but it can be resolved. And it must be resolved in a way that upholds both our laws and our highest ideals. (Applause.)* * * * State of the Union 2008 * * * *

Of course, there is a “a lawful way for foreign workers to come here and support our economy.” It’s called legal immigration. Farmers who claim to fear “crops rotting in the fields” can even import legal guestworkers under the H-2A Visa program which farmers don’t like because they’re responsible for the workers. The only reason for illegal labor is because it’s cheaper.

There’s a thread on Reason’s Hit and Run blog ["Ron Paul’s candidacy is proving the irrelevance of libertarianism"
Matt Welch | January 28, 2008, 5:04pm] criticizing John Derbyshire’s VDARE.com, Paradoxically, Ron Paul’s Success Proving Irrelevance of Libertarianism, which seems to have confused many of the Hit and Run commenters.We should probably change the title to “Paradoxically, Ron Paul’s Success Proving Irrelevance of Establishment Libertarians.”  Matt Welch and Reason, of course, represent whatever establishment libertarianism can be said to have.

(You can comment at the Reason thread yourself, if you like, by going here.)

According to the Birmingham News [Unlicensed driver laws on increase, by Kent Faulk, January 27, 2008], police in a number of Alabama cities may now impound the car when they make a traffic stop and discover the driver is unlicensed.

The times being what they are, this sensible policy naturally provokes bleating from … can you guess?

Critics contend such laws are aimed at intimidating illegal immigrants, who aren’t allowed to get driver’s licenses.

“It seems to be a good ploy, `We’re going to make life difficult for you in the United States,’” said Jose Guerrero, owner of a Spanish-language newspaper and radio station in north Alabama.

Of course such laws are colorblind; an unlicensed driver is an unlicensed driver–and shouldn’t be driving:

“Most people think we are picking on Hispanics and we are not,” said Russellville Police Chief Chris Hargett.

Instead, police said, they are trying to cut down on the number of unlicensed drivers - no matter who they are - to cut down on the number of traffic accidents.

“We did have a lot of complaints about people being involved in accidents with non-licensed and uninsured drivers,” said Athens Police Chief R.W. Harper. The law is “not aimed at anyone in particular.”

But the resulting statistics don’t surprise:

In the first five days after the law took effect, Russellville police impounded 11 cars from motorists they stopped who didn’t have driver’s licenses. Eight of the motorists were Hispanics.

Huntsville officers impounded about 450 cars in the four months since the law went into effect in mid-September. No breakdown of the drivers’ ethnicity was available.

“While we’re not targeting Hispanics, clearly in our statistical data, in the six months prior to this ordinance, we had over 1,400 Hispanics arraigned in municipal court,” said Rex Reynolds, public safety director for Huntsville. “A large percentage of that was due to no driver’s license,” he said.

So same old, same old, no? But it turns out that the aforementioned Jose Guerrero must moonlight as a political philosopher, or at least a constitutional lawyer:

Guerrero contends the laws violate the rights of children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. “Those children who are riding in that car are U.S. citizens,” Guerrero said.

Guerrero isn’t explicit about it, but apparently it’s a constitutional right for us citizens–anchor babies included, unfortunately–to ride in cars! Can entitlement to a new car every couple of years be far behind?